Partly allowed

Kumudhan v. The Chairman

Madras HC3 Feb 2023WP/2703/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Krishnagiri Municipality officials to survey the petitioner's land through the Head Surveyor before commencing any road laying work to ensure compliance with due process of law and prevent unauthorized occupation of private property.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to survey land by Head Surveyor in petitioner's presence within four weeks before laying road.

Kumudhan Vs The Chairman — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.2703 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.02.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.2703 of 2023 and WMP.No.2806 of 2023

Kumudhan

... Petitioner

Versus

The Chairman, Krishnagiri Municipality, Krishnagiri.

¶11

The Commissioner, Krishnagiri Municipality, Krishnagiri.

¶12

The Municipal Engineer, Krishnagiri Municipality, Krishnagiri.

¶13

Vinayagam ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 not to laying road and any other work in petitioner property potion of the sub division of the lands in Survey No.60/1, Ward No.A, Block No.19, Kattiganapalli, Krishnagiri Taluk and District for purpose of laying roads without due process of law of acquisition.

¶15

1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P.No.2703 of 2023

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ramesh Vel For Respondents : Mr.B.Anand, Standing Counsel For Krishnagiri Municipality RR1 to 3

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to

¶20

3 not to lay the road and any other work in petitioner property in Survey No.60/1, Ward No.A, Block No.19, Kattiganapalli, Krishnagiri Taluk.

¶21

The only grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are trying to lay the road on the patta land of the petitioner without making any enquiry. The petitioner sent notice on 01.12.2022 to the respondents 1 to 3 to drop all road laying works. Despite the receipt of notice, the respondents are continuing their illegal activities without any acquisition proceedings. Hence, the present petition.

¶22

In such view of the matter, the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to survey the land by the Head Surveyor, Taluk Office, Krishnagiri District, in the presence of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of reciept of a copy of this order and thereafter, lay the road.

¶23

2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

W.P.No.2703 of 2023

¶25

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶26

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

03.02.2023

rli

Index : Yes/No

The Chairman, Krishnagiri Municipality, Krishnagiri.

¶32

The Commissioner, Krishnagiri Municipality, Krishnagiri.

¶33

The Municipal Engineer, Krishnagiri Municipality, Krishnagiri.

¶34

3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

W.P.No.2703 of 2023

¶36

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

rli

W.P.No.2703 of 2023

03.02.2023

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Kumudhan v. The Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumudhan v. The Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Dhanasekaran Vs The Inspector of Police

M.Soundarapandiyan Vs The Thasildhar

Ch.Trinadh Kumar Vs The State of TamilNadu

Haji M.I.Mohammed Ali Vs The Chairman

Mrs. Praba Ravi, F/a 45 Years Vs The Secretary to the

Lima Roselind Ligori Vs The Commissioner cum Estate officer